How does parallelism apply here? If at all?

Forums: Parallelism, Grammar
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi,

I hope someone can help. I've been coming across the same issue many times in my writing and I would appreciate someone who can guide me to what is most grammatically correct. Here are the two examples:

Example 1 -
"...relationship that is held between mental and physical states by providing..."
"...relationship that is held between mental states and physical states by providing..."
Which one of the above sentences is correct? P.S. I'm referring here to the existence of both a physical state and a mental state.

Example 2 -
"...such as within neuroscience and computer science."
"...such as within neuro and computer science."
Which one of the above is correct?

I would really appreciate help!

- Olivia

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 978 • Replies: 23

No top replies

The first pair of sentences are both correct. You have correctly economized on use of 'states'. In the second set, you can't use 'science' one time only, because neuroscience is one word whereas computer science is a two-word phrase. Maybe you can do this (see the hyphen?)

Example 2 -
"...such as within neuroscience and computer science."
"...such as within neuro- and computer science."

Or else call it neurobiology.

0 Replies

@otownsend,

Quote:

"...relationship that is held between mental and physical states by providing..."

Yes, this is fine. However, the words, "that is held" are not necessary.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I disagree. The phrase 'that is held' is required but in the longer form 'that is held to exist'. This is because such parallelism is hypothetical.
This is yet another example of how knowledge of context is involved in the acceptability of sentence samples.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Describe the difference between relationship and hypothetical relationship.

1 Reply

Will it matter what proceeds or follows that statement?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

"...relationship that is held between mental and physical states by providing..."

Presumably, the entire sentence would go something like: "One can show the relationship between mental and physical states by providing the results of a subject's medical examination."

But only the OP can clear this up.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

It would be helpful if the OP included the entire sentence.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yeah, but that only happens in the movies. Smile

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Who done it? ;(

0 Replies

@Glennn,

The difference
The term 'parallelism' is synomymous with 'isomorphism' (one to one correspondence).Whereas some relationship may be present, its mechanisms are unclear.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Whereas some relationship may be present, its mechanisms are unclear.

Concerning the OP's example, the relationship between mental and physical states is not hypothetical since it can be shown by experiment. For instance, mental agitation or fear will cause certain physiological changes. Therefore, the correlation between physical and mental states is not unclear or hypothetical.

1 Reply

@otownsend,

https://media.giphy.com/media/zgwbvDq9rDfa/giphy.gif

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

That graphic is worth a thousand words. Life is all about the back and forth, pushing and shoving, and eventually landing in a comfortable spot for ourselves. And after all that, we learned that often times, we make mistakes.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

You misunderstand isomorphism. Obviously some physical correlates can be associated with some mental states. But take 'raised adrenalin levels' for example. It can be associated with a number of different mental states from 'fear' to 'excitement'. 'One to many' is not isomorphism, which is one to one.
BTW paralleism between 'computer science' and 'neuroscience' is even more problematic with spectacular failures abounding in the field of AI.

1 Reply

@fresco,

". . . relationship that is held between mental and physical states by providing . . ."

The OP's example statement has nothing to do with isomorphism since it involves the issue of how mental states correspond to physical states. It does not involve the issue of the similarity between mental states and physical states.

0 Replies

Pardon me for seeming obtuse, but I think (and the tags support me) the question was about grammar.

1 Reply

@centrox,

Trie. One tag is ''grammar' but the other is 'parallelism' which in reinforced by the wording of the title.
Just as an aside, the parallelism issue goes all the way back to Descarte's 'Ghost in the Machine', and it is the 'machine' element of that which is the historical context which still drives reductionist attempts to 'explain' psychological states.

0 Replies

I still feel that the discussion has veered into philosophy. The two tags are "parallelism, grammar". That seems clear enough. In grammar, parallelism is a balance within one or more sentences of similar phrases or clauses that have the same grammatical structure.

Lacking parallelism: "She likes cooking, jogging, and to read."
Parallel: "She likes cooking, jogging, and reading."
Parallel: "She likes to cook, jog, and read."

The first sentence has two gerunds and one infinitive. To make it parallel, the sentence can be rewritten with three gerunds or three infinitives. That's the kind of "parallelism" I think the OP was asking about.

1 Reply

@centrox,

Well we can agree to differ. Each of us brings our own 'context' to the question.
Only the questioner can decide which, if any, is useful.

At the risk of compounding my tangential thinking, this differential focus issue
is one basis of Derrida's point that context has a temporal aspect which cannot be recaptured. He clamed that 'meaning' shifts even when re-read by the author because the author has 'moved on'.

0 Replies

Forums
» How does parallelism apply here? If at all?

Read Question
Reply to All

How does parallelism apply here? If at all?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know